Carter years, but worse???

[PLC1]

Does no one here understand how government works? Congress MAKES the budget bills. The president can recommend what he thinks the budget 'should be', but it is based on the spending that Congress passes. And ultimately, Congress can do anything they want, even if to completely ignore the budget, and spend as much much as they want.

Yes, yes they can. And the real test of who is fiscally conservative, and who isn't, is in the size of the budgets proposed. If the pres is proposing a limited budget, and the liberal Congress adds a ton of spending to that budget, then you have a point: It's all the fault of Congress. If it's the pres who is proposing that the federal government spend more than it has, then it's the fault of both, since the Congress has to approve that budget.

Clue: If Bush wakes up tomorrow and says 'gee I'd like an extra $500 billion for faith-based initiatives'... he goes out and..... what? Nothing, he can't do jack.

Of course he can. All he has to do is go to a sympathetic Congress, and say, "Gee, fellows, I'd like a few measly billions for this project or that one", and he gets his dough. If the Congress doesn't happen to have that much cash on hand, why, there's the SS fund to raid, or perhaps borrowing from China.

A senator, or a representative has to write the bill, the senate and house both have to pass the bill, before it ever gets to Bush. What can he do to force any of that? Nothing. Not a thing. Once it gets to Bush, he has 2 options. He can't change it, add to it, modify it, correct it, or anything else. He can sign... or veto. That's it!

Yes, he could veto the the bills sent to him by the liberal Republican dominated Congress, or, I should say, he could have vetoed them.

Do you remember Clinton ever saying anything like that between his oval office orgies? Nope. So why did the budget get slimmed up? Republican and the contract with America. How quickly we forget.

So, what happened to that contract with America after the Republican party gained control of the Congress and the White House? Can a political party be sued for breach of contract?

What happened to that balanced budget amendment proposal once the so called party of fiscal responsibility gained power?

I'm not even going to try to argue that the Democrats are the party of small government and fiscal responsibility. We all know that they are not. The point I want to make is that there is no longer a party of fiscal responsibility and small government. IMO, Bush and his Republican dominated Congress are largely responsible for the demise of real conservatism, as they hijacked the party and guided it toward a statism that even the Democrats never achieved.

It wasn't Clinton that got federal spending under control. It wasn't the white house that put a clamp on the budget. It was congress. When conservatives in the congress who have the ability to control spending do so, then it will be controlled. When liberals have control of the spending bills, it doesn't matter who is in office, the spending will go wild.

So, it was the Republican dominated Congress that cut back on the military and kind of sort of almost balanced the budget. Is that what you would have us believe? All this time, I thought the Republican party was in favor of a strong military.

 

[Unite Our Nation]

Can I second that the past few years has proven that "we the people" do NOT have a party who are for small government, reduced spending or even fiscal responsibility?!

We need to push our Legislators hard for the next year to change this!!!

 

[Andy]

Yes, yes they can. And the real test of who is fiscally conservative, and who isn't, is in the size of the budgets proposed. If the pres is proposing a limited budget, and the liberal Congress adds a ton of spending to that budget, then you have a point: It's all the fault of Congress. If it's the pres who is proposing that the federal government spend more than it has, then it's the fault of both, since the Congress has to approve that budget.

Well... go read his 2001 budget. If his 2001 budget was left enacted as written without adding to it. In 2005 or 2006 we would have an actual surplus. Of course, that didn't happen because every year they increased the budget far more than he requested. Of course he wasn't planning on having a terrorist attack and dealing with that either.

Just for the record... I'm not saying he is excluded. I'm saying that if congress were to cut the budget, all those numbers on Bush's budget would be irrelevant. Let's focus on those who have the most control.

Remember, Bush doesn't even sign the final budget. Once he sends down what he thinks it should be... they can do literally anything, and he doesn't even see the final results.

Of course he can. All he has to do is go to a sympathetic Congress, and say, "Gee, fellows, I'd like a few measly billions for this project or that one", and he gets his dough. If the Congress doesn't happen to have that much cash on hand, why, there's the SS fund to raid, or perhaps borrowing from China.

Well if congress is sympathetic, should we be nailing them to the wall? After all, in either case, they have the power over the spending, not Bush. I mean, if the democrats are so into this cutting spending thing, why didn't they filibuster all the requests for more money? Why didn't they oppose it? In fact, why did they write most of the over spending bills? I went through the bills that Bush veto'd from 2006 on, most of them were written by democrats. Why is this?

Btw... I don't know exactly where this "raid the Social Security fund" idea came from... but it's not true.

There is no fund. It does not exist. All money that goes into Social Security, goes straight into the general fund every single year. There is no cash there. If Bush wakes up today and goes and asks Congress for $1 Billion to fund the Hydrogen car, and says to just take it from Social Security, no can do.. there's no money in Social Security. It is already spent, and has been for the last 40 years.

So let's stop playing around like raiding social security is a new thing. It was done long before carter, before Nixon, before LBJ and JFK. It's gone. There NO MONEY THERE. The accounts are empty, the money is spent, and congress is laughing. Again, if you want to stop them from taking SS, don't blame the president, no matter who it is. Congress is to blame. Pay attention to your reps and senators. Vote the scum bags out.

Yes, he could veto the the bills sent to him by the liberal Republican dominated Congress, or, I should say, he could have vetoed them.

2 or 3 vote in the senate is hardly dominated. Plus the farm bill, and other massive spending bills in Bush's early years were in a democrat congress.

So, what happened to that contract with America after the Republican party gained control of the Congress and the White House? Can a political party be sued for breach of contract?

That was 1994. They lost control in 1998? or 2000? The problem is that everyone turned against them. Remember the budget battle of 1995? There was massive turning against the Republicans.

Here's the bottom line. Whether you or I like it or not... most the public does not care about the debt. They say they do when it is politically advantageous to do so. For example, when it can be blamed on Bush, the democrats come out of the wood work to decry the debt. But remember when Clinton in 93 tried to pass the largest most pork filled massively over stuffed spending bill in history? The Republicans, and even some democrats that couldn't stomach it, shot the bill down, but if not for them, it would have blown nearly half a trillion a year in just pork projects.

Point being, these democrats don't care about borrowing from China. They don't care about raiding social security. They don't care about any of this stuff, just as long as their guy wins.

What happened to that balanced budget amendment proposal once the so called party of fiscal responsibility gained power?

It was shot down by the liberal establishment. This is why we should have supported it when it had a chance. You think congress might be more fiscally responsible when their personal income was dependent on a balanced budget? Yes.

But instead, like I stated before, the people don't care about deficits and debts. They just want their free hand outs and their food stamps and welfare checks, and medicare.

Now, it will be difficult to get that kind of willingness on the part of Republicans to do that. Why should they hang their neck out again for a balanced budget amendment, when they got whacked last time, and the public was more for irresponsibility?

I'm not even going to try to argue that the Democrats are the party of small government and fiscal responsibility. We all know that they are not. The point I want to make is that there is no longer a party of fiscal responsibility and small government. IMO, Bush and his Republican dominated Congress are largely responsible for the demise of real conservatism, as they hijacked the party and guided it toward a statism that even the Democrats never achieved.

I still see many efforts that were tried. The department of homeland security for example, was an attempt to reduce the number of government agencies that each required massive budgets. The new department requires less funding than the separate ones.

That said, I do see your point. And it is possible it may be true. But even now, Bush has been calling for reduced spending, and the Congress just goes on blowing as much as they choose.

So, it was the Republican dominated Congress that cut back on the military and kind of sort of almost balanced the budget. Is that what you would have us believe? All this time, I thought the Republican party was in favor of a strong military.

It's two dynamics. One party cuts the military, and one party stopped the increase in social spending. If either had not done that, the budget would have not made it where it was.

I would have preferred to not cut the military so much myself. I would have rather they focused on the social spending for cuts. But yes, they did cut the military.

I'm not generally for a constant increase in military spending, unless it is for a war or just for basic R&D to keep us ahead. The idea that Republicans are blindly for ever increasing military budgets is a myth.

The main problem I have is when we cut funding for the military that results in us losing things we invested it. Like military bases should be closed rarely. We invest millions into them, and then without a proper maintenance budget, the base can deteriorate to junk in a short time. We should protect our investment so when they are needed we don't have to rebuild for more millions.

 

[PLC1]

Well... go read his 2001 budget. If his 2001 budget was left enacted as written without adding to it. In 2005 or 2006 we would have an actual surplus. Of course, that didn't happen because every year they increased the budget far more than he requested. Of course he wasn't planning on having a terrorist attack and dealing with that either.

So, had the Republican dominated Congress and the president held the line on spending, kept the budget the same for four years, then the budget would have been balanced. I have no doubt that is so. Had they simply not increased the budget passed by the tax and spend Democrats in 2000 beyond the rate of inflation, the budget would doubtless have balanced as well.

Just for the record... I'm not saying he is excluded. I'm saying that if congress were to cut the budget, all those numbers on Bush's budget would be irrelevant. Let's focus on those who have the most control.

And I'm not saying that it's all Bush. Certainly, the Congress plays a major role. My point is that neither Bush nor the Congress was fiscally responsible.

Remember, Bush doesn't even sign the final budget. Once he sends down what he thinks it should be... they can do literally anything, and he doesn't even see the final results.



Well if congress is sympathetic, should we be nailing them to the wall? After all, in either case, they have the power over the spending, not Bush. I mean, if the democrats are so into this cutting spending thing, why didn't they filibuster all the requests for more money? Why didn't they oppose it? In fact, why did they write most of the over spending bills? I went through the bills that Bush veto'd from 2006 on, most of them were written by democrats. Why is this?

Bush vetoed bills written by Democrats because they were written by Democrats, and he's a Republican. He didn't veto bills written by the Republican Congress, because he's a Republican. It's simple party politics.

And, yes, we need to be "nailing the Congress to the wall" as well. Both parties, both houses, the whole lot of them are profligate spenders. The projected deficit for this fiscal year approaches a trillion dollars! One teradollar, or over three thousand dollars for every person in this great country of ours.

Btw... I don't know exactly where this "raid the Social Security fund" idea came from... but it's not true.

There is no fund. It does not exist. All money that goes into Social Security, goes straight into the general fund every single year. There is no cash there. If Bush wakes up today and goes and asks Congress for $1 Billion to fund the Hydrogen car, and says to just take it from Social Security, no can do.. there's no money in Social Security. It is already spent, and has been for the last 40 years.

Exactly. The "fund" was put into the general fund during the reign of LBJ, who at least admitted to being a big government spender. The money is collected for a pension fund, yet is, and has been for decades, raided, stolen, used for the day to day business of government. If a private company used a pension plan in that way, it would be called fraud.

The money collected for SS exceeded money spent on that program by $177 billion in the last fiscal year. That money was spent, not kept for future retirees. I call it raiding the fund. The obvious solution to Social Security is to take the money out of the general fund and start paying back those IOUs.

So let's stop playing around like raiding social security is a new thing. It was done long before carter, before Nixon, before LBJ and JFK. It's gone. There NO MONEY THERE. The accounts are empty, the money is spent, and congress is laughing. Again, if you want to stop them from taking SS, don't blame the president, no matter who it is. Congress is to blame. Pay attention to your reps and senators. Vote the scum bags out.

The president plays a role also, but, yes, Congress plays a major role.

And, no, it's not a new thing. It started during the Johnson administration.

2 or 3 vote in the senate is hardly dominated. Plus the farm bill, and other massive spending bills in Bush's early years were in a democrat congress.



That was 1994. They lost control in 1998? or 2000? The problem is that everyone turned against them. Remember the budget battle of 1995? There was massive turning against the Republicans.

Here's the bottom line. Whether you or I like it or not... most the public does not care about the debt. They say they do when it is politically advantageous to do so. For example, when it can be blamed on Bush, the democrats come out of the wood work to decry the debt. But remember when Clinton in 93 tried to pass the largest most pork filled massively over stuffed spending bill in history? The Republicans, and even some democrats that couldn't stomach it, shot the bill down, but if not for them, it would have blown nearly half a trillion a year in just pork projects.

Point being, these democrats don't care about borrowing from China. They don't care about raiding social security. They don't care about any of this stuff, just as long as their guy wins.

Good point, but the same applies to the Republicans.

It was shot down by the liberal establishment. This is why we should have supported it when it had a chance. You think congress might be more fiscally responsible when their personal income was dependent on a balanced budget? Yes.

Balony. The balanced budget amendment was a statement against the "tax and spend" Democrats. As soon as the Republicans took power, it was pushed under the table. If the Republican party really wanted a balanced budget amendment, why didn't they try to pass one while they were in power? It was never intended to pass, but was simply more partisan politics.

But instead, like I stated before, the people don't care about deficits and debts. They just want their free hand outs and their food stamps and welfare checks, and medicare.

Unfortunately, you have a point there. Tax cuts are popular, but spending cuts are only popular if you cut someone else's program. The result is out of control spending and deficits.

Like a family living on credit cards, there will come a day of reckoning sooner or later. Of course, whoever is in power when that day comes will be blamed for the crash.

I still see many efforts that were tried. The department of homeland security for example, was an attempt to reduce the number of government agencies that each required massive budgets. The new department requires less funding than the separate ones.

That said, I do see your point. And it is possible it may be true. But even now, Bush has been calling for reduced spending, and the Congress just goes on blowing as much as they choose.

Yes, he is calling for reduced spending, now that the other party is in power in Congress. He really isn't working to reduce spending so much as to try to make the Democrats out to be the spendaholics while the Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility. That image is just that, an image divorced from reality.

It's two dynamics. One party cuts the military, and one party stopped the increase in social spending. If either had not done that, the budget would have not made it where it was.

I would have preferred to not cut the military so much myself. I would have rather they focused on the social spending for cuts. But yes, they did cut the military.

I'm not generally for a constant increase in military spending, unless it is for a war or just for basic R&D to keep us ahead. The idea that Republicans are blindly for ever increasing military budgets is a myth.

The main problem I have is when we cut funding for the military that results in us losing things we invested it. Like military bases should be closed rarely. We invest millions into them, and then without a proper maintenance budget, the base can deteriorate to junk in a short time. We should protect our investment so when they are needed we don't have to rebuild for more millions.

The United States spends nearly as much on the military as the rest of the world combined. How much money does it need?